Sometimes we decide to watch a movie simply because of one name among the cast or crew that we recognize, without any foreknowledge otherwise. In finding titles on that basis, the quality can fall anywhere on a very wide spectrum. 2009's 'From the dark' is a curiosity, to say the least. The cinematography, lighting, and special effects, and set design, immediately betray the low-budget nature of the production. On the other hand - though obviously fake, the blood and gore look good; other considerations like wardrobe, hair and makeup, and the creature design (what we see of it) are fine. In the writing and direction jointly helmed by Cliff McClelland and Tom Zembrond, meanwhile, there is such wild variation that from one moment to the next it's hard to tell just what we're going to get, and we quickly ken that the whole can't possibly be greater than a mixed bag. With that said - this isn't bad, and I do enjoy it, but it struggles so much to feel genuine that it's definitely not going to be for everyone.
There is, occasionally, some sincerity and authenticity in the dialogue, or minor cleverness. Unfortunately, it's also characterized in large part by needless dated references; tastelessly crude lines of an overtly sexual nature; trying too hard to imp high school or college age stereotypes and tropes; and large portions that are just plain bland or extraneous. And, to be honest, so it is with much of the picture otherwise. There's a sliver of depth offered in the screenplay to some of the characters, but mostly they're thin and one-dimensional, with little meaningful heart. Scene writing wavers between earnest, engaging, and pointless, and to add insult to injury, two of three instances of nudity are grossly gauche and gratuitous. (I can almost hear the filmmakers in my mind, giggling at the notion that they made a movie with topless women.) The plot is slightly less predictable than I imagined it would be - but also, there's such a dire lack of plot development over these almost 90 minutes that the bulk of the feature seems ever more trivial because of it. The direction, generally bringing the picture to fruition, mostly feels adequate on a very baseline level.
Then again, the directors' hands in guiding the takes of each shot and scenes, and the performances of their cast, is considerably more blameworthy. As I suggested at the start, there's only one person here I recognize, and that's Laura Bailey - a highly skilled actor who above all is known for great voice work, and whether behind a microphone or (less frequently) in front of a camera, she has more than proven herself. Yet there are most certainly times throughout 'From the dark' that her acting feels forced, and less than honest. This is even more true for her co-stars, in whom I see some demonstrations of the range, nuance, and poise that would mark them as capable players. However, once again and more so than even for Bailey, the other cast members are largely forced into a corner where actions appear unmistakably feigned, emoting is overwrought, and the actors at times just seem disinterested in the moment. I quite like the cast, truly, and I'd like to see them in other films, but here they don't get the chance to really show their worth.
I'd be very curious to know more about the production. This feels so much like a movie made on a lark among friends - the type of picture where they're less concerned with the end result than that they got to make it in the first place, and have fun doing so. And there's nothing wrong with that! But as a viewer, an outsider looking in, I can only comment on what I see. And what I see is a movie that has some good ideas, and a capable cast, but writing that's all over the place, and direction that at least in this case is just too questionable. I admire the effort, and I think 'From the dark' is mildly entertaining - but there is no reason to go out of your way for this, and anyone sitting to watch must necessarily mind the potholes along the way.
